Weston Ordinance Talking Points

Storage requirements are unenforceable per District of Columbia v Heller.

"Simply put, the State of New York and its agencies are no longer in a position
to require that a handgun be stored in an inoperable condition or otherwise locked
up if it is otherwise legally present in the owner's dwelling." - Judge Gary H.
Weber - Colaiacovo v Dormer 2008

How can a magazine ban with arbitrary limits on the number of rounds be enforced?

A magazine that 'looks like' a 30 round magazine can hold more or less.

If a spring on a magazine is wearing out and one more round can be stuffed in, does
that violate such a law?

Does the Town of Weston plan on paying for a fair value for every magazine banned?
Otherwise, all existing magazines must be grandfathered. The Town of Weston does
not have the power to enact ex post facto laws.

How can the Town of Weston enforce a ban on any weapons?

The Town of Weston cannot enact ex post facto law, so therefore must purchase all
firearms or grandfather all firearms.

District of Columbia v Heller says 'those [firearms] in common use for lawful purposes'
may not be banned.

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16
rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia
at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they
possessed at home." - District of Columbia v Heller (2008)

The Town of Weston is preempted from stopping state pistol permit holders from possessing
and carrying firearms in their town. The State of Connecticut has clearly 'occupied
this area of law'.

Simple logic dictates that banning these items in town makes the residents of the
town less armed than the people who will be entering the town.

Stated purpose is that the 'use' of firearms or weapons might be dangerous, but
goes on to ban possession. Why not an ordinance just against 'unlawful discharge'
(which Weston already has)?

Automatic firearms are already heavily regulated by state and federal law. What
would a $500 ordinance accomplish that those laws are not already accomplishing?

Registering all firearms in town puts a huge workload on the police department,
and a huge liability on the town to defend such laws.

Helpful violent crime facts:

In 2011 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were
12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms, excluding two
reporting states for which information is not available. Down -3% from the previous
year. [1]

This includes statistics of gang violence, violent crimes in the drug war or gang
violence, justified homicides by police officers, and justified homicides of self-defense.
[2]

Nationally, violent crime last year fell 3.8 percent for the fifth consecutive year.

The nation is getting safer, but metro/urban areas still struggle with high rates
of murder, rape, and assault. Particularly in cities with the strictest gun control
or a high rate of gang associative violence.

Yet, still there were 77 firearms murders in DC in 2010, down 22% on 2009.

California - a state with high gang violence and strict gun control - had the highest
number of gun murders last year - 1,790, which is 68% of all murders that year and
equivalent to 3.25 per 100,000 people in the state. Big as that figure is, it's
still down by 3% on the previous year. [3]

Per the FBI, you are more likely to die by hands or feet than shotguns, rifles which
"gun control advocates" state should be banned because they're "scary looking".
[4]

There are roughly 300+ million citizens citizens in this country. There are 200+
suspected firearms in this country. Given the firearm-ownership-to-citizen ratio
and associated crime, the justification based on isolated violent (though highly
publicized) incidents in which pharmaceutically-medicated psychopaths utilized firearms
to commit mass murders seems to me irrational and denotes an underlying issue: the
desire to control others regardless of the consequences.

Instead of disgustingly advocating that the "state" violate my inherent right to
self-protection by attempting to confiscate 210 million firearms or "banning" 120
types of firearms of which tens of millions are in the possession of legal firearm
owners so gun control advocates can feel good about about themselves, should we
be discussing: